Rush Limbaugh controversy has only masked it. He's a jack" />

Limbaugh Turns the Attention from Reproductive Attacks

There’s a war on women in this country right now and the Rush Limbaugh controversy has only masked it. He’s a jackass and according to the GOP, what he said was no big deal because he’s just an entertainer.

Well, what he said is a big deal, but only because it is such a clear symptom of the female bashing that’s been going on recently in the U.S.

Rush Limbaugh is really just the sideshow freak to take the eyes off of the real problem, which is not just about who’s going to pay for the contraception needed when women have sex with men.

The battles in the war against women have been popping up all over the place.

First of all, we have the Catholic church, which says that they shouldn’t be required to pay for insurance that covers contraception. It’s discriminatory, not to mention socially irresponsible.

Nobody’s forcing Catholic women to use birth control if their religious beliefs are in opposition. But as a business who profits from non-Catholics, hires them, educates them, etc., the business has a social responsibility to provide the contraception option.

No matter what lobbyists say, businesses are not people. They cannot have moral or religious beliefs. However, businesses should have social responsibility. They are not legally allowed to discriminate in hiring practices. Clearly their schools allow non-Catholics to become educated in their institutions. It only makes sense that they should provide options for the non-Catholics.

As a whole, it is in society’s best interest to have options available to prevent unwanted pregnancy so that our nation isn’t burdened with unwanted children, which at best lead to added stress for parents and at worst lead to more abortions, and/or child abuse and neglect.

By trying to force their religious beliefs onto their insurance policy, it forces their religious and moral code onto those using it. And that is not freedom of religion. It is religious oppression, which is why this country has freedom of religion written into the Constitution.

Secondly, we have Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she dared to

Rush Limbaugh

Dance for us Rush! Dance! Dance!

protest Georgetown University’s decision not to cover birth control under its university insurance policy. Really, I’m tired of hearing about him. He’s got a fat trap, but he’s not really the worst of our problems. And why isn’t the media focusing on what Sandra Fluke wants to say instead of one stupid thing that Rush Limbaugh said?

I’m sure that he says stupid things all the time. What Sandra Fluke has to say is wayyy more important.

But really, that’s nothing compared to the horrific chauvinistic bills that are literally affecting women’s actual reproductive rights, and their pocketbooks, as we speak.

Bills being introduced and passed across the country limit access to abortion through psychological, and some even say physical, rape.

These bills force women who wish to have an abortion to undergo ultrasounds, some with transvaginal probes, which many call “state sponsored rape.” They requires women to sign affidavits noting they are aware of their other options.

Because, you know, we clearly don’t know how to research these issues on our own.

These bills also typically include waiting periods and other objectionable items.

They are repulsive and demeaning to women, as if women haven’t already given this procedure plenty of thought before getting to the doctor’s office.

I don’t think it’s a big coincidence that the majority of these bills are sponsored by males.

These bills have already been passed in Texas, Virginia, and Pennsylvania,

Idaho is currently considering a similar abortion bill, sponsored by Senate Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, (R-Meridian).

New Hampshire is also considering an abortion bill this week.

If you think that’s no so bad, oh, ho, ho, it gets even worse.

A bill making its way through the Kansas legislature would tax women who seek an abortion.

Last year Kansas enacted a law that removed abortion from health coverage, so women in Kansas must now purchase special abortion insurance if they want it to be covered. Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) is the sponsor of the bill.

Arizona and Kansas are also pursuing laws that would allow doctors to withhold medical information about a fetus’ birth defects or medical conditions that might cause a mother to consider abortion.

This isn’t just about abortion, in my opinion. It’s about control. Historically, children and pregnancy have been used to keep women busy and out of the way.

But, luckily for us, at least one woman is fighting back.

Ohio’s State Senator Nina Turner (D) has introduced a bill dripping with such beautiful sarcasm I immediately visited her website, liked her on Facebook, and followed her on Twitter. She is a hero. Finally, a woman who is fighting fire with fire.

Her bill requires that men who wish to obtain a prescription for viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs would undergo similar waiting periods, a stress test, and psychological evaluation.

State Senator Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, has introduced a bill to require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs (viagra), including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist for confirmation that “the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions.”

“We want to make sure that men, vulnerable, fragile men, who are not capable of making decisions for themselves, understand all of the side effects and the implications of these types of drugs,” Turner said in a telephone interview.

You can read the entire article here.

Yes, I have already started calling her Madame President, in my mind. As I read about this bill, a fantasy formed. When she reaches the White House, I will be invited to visit. We will discuss politics and race-related issues, intermingling with laughter at our children’s poop and fart jokes while we teach them about organic gardening.

Then in the evening after the children are in bed, we will retire to the West Wing where we will drink imported beer and have Rush Limbaugh dance for us in a dress. After all, he’s just an entertainer. He should be willing to do it for some viagra.

Oh and don’t worry, we’ll post it online for everyone to see.

7 comments

  1. Elizabeth says:

    Ooooh – Oooooh – I want to come too!!!

  2. Laura says:

    Wait – they have to be socially responsible but cannot have moral or religious beliefs? Says who? Is this your personal opinion? I’m pretty sure that’s not at all the legal precedent. Social responsibility *is* a moral belief, anyway. I’m not disagreeing with your entire premise, but that particular line of reasoning is not going to hold up to scrutiny.

    I’m not an expert on the subject, but the courts have already ruled that certain businesses/organizations are exempt from the standard interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. Sure, you can argue those past legal decisions, but as they stand now, the contraception issue is not out of left field – it’s a continuation of those rulings.

    • Martha says:

      Yes, it is my personal opinion. And sure, people can hold moral and religious beliefs. But IMHO, businesses should have social conscious and should be held to the laws that say we cannot discriminate. Where you are wrong is that I don’t see these people as my enemies. And I DO understand where they are coming from. I just believe that they are wrong. These laws put women and mothers at great jeopardy. It’s not only socially irresponsible, it’s morally wrong.

  3. Laura says:

    Ugh, the rest got deleted…. Here’s my point, paraphrased: I don’t have strong feelings on this issue (except that Rush is an ass). I ‘m not Catholic, and I seem to be one of the few in the country who legitimately sees both sides. I’m just frustrated by the polarizing. As someone who doesn’t identify as either conservative or liberal but has many many friends who fall rabidly into both camps, all I know is that there are good, kind, passionate, smart, moral people on both ends of the “reproductive rights” debate. Can we move past the point of vilifying our opponents, assuming the most negative intent, and framing their strongly held views in the most extreme way possible? That’s what’s missing in the conversation. There’s way too much judgment being hurled every which way. Can we attempt to understand our “enemy”?

  4. You bring up some great points. It’s ironic that insurance will pay for Viagra so men can have sex with women, but women can’t be covered from getting pregnant from men. Women who get pregnant accidentally often carry the heavier burden, literally speaking, too. After all, it’s their bodies who are undergoing changes, and if the father bails, she’s left trying to deal with the situation alone.

    • Martha says:

      So true! Yes. And even if the dads don’t bail, moms typically carry the heavier load, literally and figuratively.